easycure

Oh really? Where? In what? When? Tell me the exact passage, explain to me what I don't know at all, help me understand how to realize it.. yeah yeah, why don't you argue back? ..it occurs to me to ask: am I the one, or are you, my dear, the one who has no clue about what I'm talking about? ;-D

Duplicate or not duplicate, it seems right to include this too, since your opinion is very different from mine ;-) .. yet I didn't like your review very much (beyond obviously opposite merits) ... it seems to me that you talk about overcoming prejudices and then at all costs forcibly try to frame this film rationally, you speak of "understanding it," you speak of "revealing it" ... moreover, and this is exactly the reason for our difference in views, if we overcome the prejudices you mention, films like Mulholland Drive are absolutely films for everyone.. because the "twisting" of Mulholland Drive, its lack of linearity, is a lack that the representation of desire demands. Only with everything that precedes the opening of the blue box does the viewer fully grasp, I would even say lives, the character's feeling, and it's only in this way that the entire second part gains greater expressive strength. None of this can be found in Inland Empire.. but we have already talked about it.. :-) anyway, it is very accurate.

Moreover, you keep talking about plot. But I don’t deny at all that this film has one, nor do I deny that Lynch wanted to communicate and/or express something (I never used the term self-referential). But the WAY in which Lynch narrates is presumptively, terribly presumptuous, because he plays too much with the cards on the table, insists too much on certain sequences, and complicates himself terribly by stirring and stirring and stirring. Since great masterpieces haven’t been made only by Lynch (cinema doesn’t begin and end with him, come on!), and there also exists the ability to communicate exceptionally but also in a much simpler and less, I would say, snobbish way, I would never define this film a masterpiece. Also and above all because Lynch himself has created, while remaining absolutely faithful to a unique style and personality, works that are much less exaggerated, paroxysmal, and needlessly frantic. Because I wonder: is the sense of such staging an expressive sense (therefore I’m already going far beyond simple plot factors) or is it simply a desire to push forward a style that is already mannered at all costs?

But what the hell is this, honestly, "you've seen it once so you can't judge it"? :-D then the same applies to those who consider it a masterpiece, so it shouldn't even be discussed until it's completely absorbed... and after how many times? 3, 4, 5 times? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that my first impression was this already makes it worthy of a review like the one I wrote. Furthermore, I don't "bash" anyone, kimdealissohot, I gave three to this film, but it seems to me there's a sort of rather uncritical fanaticism towards this director. I certainly don't judge a priori, and I certainly don't judge form. Honestly, if this film has set new standards for digital, I couldn't care less. Just as I wouldn't care if a great guitarist found a new way to use, I don't know, some technique... Lynch is great for how he uses digital (beautiful, I admit, but that's certainly not enough and would never be enough to judge any masterpiece), so is Van Halen great because he invented tapping? :-D

X hidden supersovereign: no one is capable of doing anything similar these days, but it still seems ridiculous to me that just because no one can do what he does, this should be considered a masterpiece. It’s exactly the same logic of provocation I was talking about. For the same reason, it seems much more hasty to label it a masterpiece rather than "limited."

X kimdealissohot: I have not denied at all that you might find a plot in it. Fine by me, I couldn't care less about the classic forum game "guess Lynch's plot." My analysis is solely focused on how Lynch stages his vision. Furthermore, I think you've misunderstood how I define and use the term "meaning." I would never dream of saying that Lynch is nonsense (have I used that term? Never. Because this is a very specific definition that I have consistently wanted to avoid). I said that meaning is lacking in terms of "artistic sense," that is, in a form subordinated to an expression, where here I see expression only in terms of images, of pure disjointed and univocal evocations. Almost a collection of paintings, which aligns with Lynch's story. Yet it’s too easy to cry masterpiece for a work like this, too easy to consciously lack cohesion, narrativity, communicativeness, and shout masterpiece. This is a masterpiece for intellectuals, it is an elitist masterpiece, and for this reason, it is entirely imperfect as a so-called "masterpiece."

Oh, it must be interesting.

Well, yes, you're right :-D

In my opinion, it depends on how much the translation distorts the original. In the example that Ajeje gave, I wouldn't have any doubts; I would write the original. If it has to be something like "la guerra dei mondi" instead of "war of the worlds," who cares? :-)

But can we write reviews for movies then? Wasn't it "forbidden"? I haven't seen the film, and I don't like the review when it dwells too much on the cast (which I think is unnecessary), but other than that, it's interesting.